Jump to content

R_Soul

Members
  • Content Count

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by R_Soul

  1. Dream Supergroup? Easy:

    John Lennon - guitar/vocals

    George Harrison - guitar vocals

    Paul McCartney - bass/keyboards/vocals

    Ringo Starr - drums

    Just imagine the 4 of them making music together!

    Actually, with reference to the above, Paul McCartney was once asked in an interview who he would have in his fantasy group. he replied something to the effect of:

    himself - bass/vocals (presumably)

    Jimi Hendrix - guitar

    John [Lennon] ("obviously") - guitar (and vocals, presumably)

    Ringo - drums

    Then, seemingly realising where he had gone with this (with 3 Beatles in the line-up), he went (as an afterthought) "...oh and, er, George on guitar" (or words to that effect).

  2. Done this already....

    Met Lulu at her Fan Club Christmas Party at (the) Abbey Road Studios, 1969. It was my brother who was the fan, not me. But she (Lu) seemed very nice. However, I was talking to someone recently who had also met her and he said that she was...um...not so nice.

    Watched a football (soccer) match [England v. Italy in the World Cup Qualifiers] in the back bar of an Irish Pub in Madrid with 3/4 of Blur, 1997. During the match both drummer Dave Rowntree and I got up to go to the loo at the same time, so I have stood next to him at a urinal with our knobs out. After we had both finished, Dave sat himself down next to where I was sitting and we had a nice chat. I'm sure he still talks about it.

  3. ...i love nirvana, and yes, they are one of the greatest bands of all time, but at this point they are just hurting modern music....

    I'm not sure that you can actually blame Nirvana for this. Maybe you should write to your local radio station and ask them to play more Blink 182 (or whatever 'great' music you've got goin' on over there at the mo'....oh yeah....Usher...ask for more Usher....)

    Nirvana gave us THREE great albums. "12 years old" is nothing. The albums are classics and lots of people love 'em. What's wrong with your radio stationplaying them? I get irritated here because our National Radio station won't play anything earlier than 1990 - and music had been mostly PANTS since then (save for Nirvana, The Pixies, Radiohead and Blur and one or two others).

  4. There are two songs that reduced me to tears after my mother died. One was "Alone Again, Naturally" and the other was "I'll Be Missing You" - especially on the extended version which has Puff talking at the beginning, bemoaning the loss of his friend (B.I.G.).

    Other than that, there are plenty of songs that make me "weep" - especially anything by Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey and Celine Dion.

  5. ...an untalented drummer in a good band (ie ringo starr)....

    You know nothing. How anyone can described Ringo as "untalented" is beyond me. OK, wasn't (isn't) a great songwriter like the other three and he's not the world's greatest singer. But he is a bloody GREAT drummer.

  6. I believe that the cool drum part (as in the drum solo right?) is from 'The End' and then George pulls some amazing solos (the cool chords I suppose?)

    The guitar "solos" are by Paul, George and John (in that order) taking it in turns to play 2 bars (about 4 seconds), three times each. The three different players' styles are quite distinctive.

    This will be my last post...so quite fitting that it's "The End"!

    Peace and love to those who care.

    Martin

    =========================================

    And in the end, "dave", the love you take is equal to the love you make. :angel:

  7. I'm not a big fan for classifying the Beatles as "good boys" maybe in their early days (like 59-64) then their innocence started to fade.

    Even pre-Fabness, The Beatles were no angels. When they were in Hamburg before hitting the big time, they got themselves into all sorts of trouble, including being arested for starting a fire. The only time they were masqueraded as 'innocent' was when Brian Epstein put them into suits [late 1962 and 1963] and they 'played the game' in order to get the exposure and open the doors for everything else that followed (including The Stones).

    Statistical fact: 3/4 of The Beatles have been arrested for various offences (mostly drug-related), Paul being the all-time champ! Only 2/5 of The Stones ever got busted. So, as it says on the Sgt. Pepper cover: "Welcome The Rolling Stones...The Good Guys"! :neener:

    Martin

    =============================================

    You may be a lover but you ain't no dancer....

  8. Most people are either Beatles people or Stones people. I don't think their music can be compared, they are really different styles.The Beatles were great no doubt about it. For my vote though, it's definatly the Rolling Stones. They are true rock n' roll start to finish.

    And they're still going!!

    Hmmmmm..... Not sure about this.

    [1] I would say The Beatles were more 'Rock 'n' Roll' and the Stones were more 'R'n'B'.

    [2] I cannot think of a greater, more potent Rock 'n' Roll performance by ANYONE (including Elvis, Little Richard et al) than Paul McCartney on The Beatles' version of "Long Tall Sally" [plus there are also incredible Rock 'n' Roll performances by the lads on "I Saw Her Standing There", "Twist And Shout", "Kansas City", "Slowdown", "Roll Over Beethoven", "Dizzy Miss Lizzy" and "One After 909", to name but some].

    [3] The Stones did stuff like "Lady Jane", "Ruby Tuesday" and the hideous "Satanic Majesty's Request" which disqualifies them from the comment that they were true rock and roll from start to finish.

    [4] The fact that they're still going (although I believe Brian Jones and Bill Wyman aren't) is not to their credit!

    I rest my case.

    Martin

    =========================================

    I'm coming down fast but don't let me break you.....

  9. I am amazed nobody has mentioned Ian Gillan or Noddy Holder.

    WHAT???????????

    Noddy Holder? That's got to be a joke, right?

    I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Otis Redding. And also, only one 'vote' each for Marvin Gaye and Al Green.

    I think the problem is the usual confusion between 'the best' and 'favourite'. Even the 3 candidates I have mentioned assumes that we are talking about 'popular' music culture, and therefore excludes the likes of Pavarotti, Domingo and Carreras?

    For me, there is a distinction.

    The 'best':

    Otis

    Marvin

    The Reverend Al

    My faves:

    John Lennon

    Paul McCartney

    Thom Yorke

    Kurt Cobain

    David Bowie

    Roy Orbison

    Martin

    ==================================

    Do what you want to do; go where you're going to...

  10. These Polls about who is 'better' are always very silly, because its not about who is 'better' or who is 'best'. It's about who you like the most which is not the same thing.

    This particular popularity contest is particularly silly, because I have never - in 40 years - seen a poll in which the Rolling Stones topped The Beatles. In one of the nationwide end-of-millennium polls, The Beatles were voted the top group of the millennium, amassing over 20% of all votes polled - the clearest victors in any category. The Rolling Stones were 3rd.

    Every (sensible) poll I've seen about 'best single' or 'best album' usually has about 5 or 6 Beatles' entries in each compared to one by The Stones in a list of 100.

    So, The Beatles are always going to be considered 'better' than The Rolling Stones because they are (and always have been) more popular. And popularity has nothing to do with being better. [is Usher 'better' than Otis Redding?]

    The Stones, I think, were 'better' live performers than The Beatles. Well, I would say that The Beatles' performances deteriorated during their heyday, whilst The Stones went from strength to strength. The Stones also released some cracking singles. Is not "Jumpin' Jack Flash" 'better' than "Lady Madonna"? Is not "Paint It Black" 'better' than 'Yellow Submarine'? Is not "Honky Tonk Woman" 'better' (or at least as good as) "Get Back" and are not "We Love You", "Dandilion", "Ruby Tuesday" and "Let's Spend The Night Together" all 'better' than "Hello Goodbye"?

    However, The Beatles strength lay in their versatility, their technical competence as songwriters and the production skills of their Producer. And whilst The Stones made consistently great singles, their albums were often a bit of a let down - something that cannot be said about The Beatles' albums, which were always 'pushing the envelope' that little bit further each time and remain thouroughly enjoyable time(less) pieces.

    Also, let us not forget, that The Stones relied on Lennon/McCartney for their second single (possibly pulling off a 'better' performance of it than The Beatles, themselves!) and only started to write their own songs after John and Paul showed Mick and Keith how 'easy' it was to do.

    So, in summary, apart from live performances, The Beatles have to be the "better" of the two bands. They are certainly my "favourite" band. Maybe The Stones might have been more popular today if they had called it a day in, say, 1981[?]

    Martin

    ===============================================

    The love you take is equal to the love you make

  11. It's funny, because I was thinking yesterday: "Is there such a thing as the PERFECT album" - a groundbreaking album, brilliant in its conception and execution from start to finish. I was going to start a discussion, but thought it (or something similar) would already have been done on this site.

    Anyway, when I was thinking about it yesterday, I figured it would have to be an album by The Beatles, as they are the albums that I play most - even now, I still keep going back to them.

    "Revolver" is my favourite album. 13 of the 14 tracks are just absolutely sublime. However, that there is one track which I have never liked ("Yellow Submarine") means that it cannot qualify as the PERFECT album - not-even-withstanding the fact that the other 13 tracks are pure genius.

    Well... to cut a very long story short, I narrowed my choice down to "Sgt. Pepper" and "Dark Side Of The Moon" as being the two most perfectly-rounded albums where every track is (at least) good, the lyrics and production inventive and ground-breaking and the musicians at their creative peak. Both albums work well conceptually (without being - ugh! "concept albums"). However, I would say that "Pepper" was significantly more influential than "Dark Side" (in fact, we probably wouldn't have had "Dark Side" if there hadn't been a "Revolver" and a "Pepper" before it). Of the two albums, I play "Pepper" more than "Dark Side" (the latter I'm playing right now just to refresh my memory about it!). And if I had to pick an all-time favourite album track (from these two albums), it would be "A Day In The Life" from "Sgt. Pepper". And, finally, the "Pepper" sessions also gave us "Strawberry Fields Forever".

    So, there you go. "Sgt. Pepper" gets my vote. [sh*t - even the cover was influential!!!]

    Martin

    =============================================

    ..And it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong I'm right...

×
×
  • Create New...